Literature DB >> 12188050

DNA loss and evolution of genome size in Drosophila.

Dmitri A Petrov1.   

Abstract

Mutation is often said to be random. Although it must be true that mutation is ignorant about the adaptive needs of the organism and thus is random relative to them as a rule, mutation is not truly random in other respects. Nucleotide substitutions, deletions, insertions, inversions, duplications and other types of mutation occur at different rates and are effected by different mechanisms. Moreover the rates of different mutations vary from organism to organism. Differences in mutational biases, along with natural selection, could impact gene and genome evolution in important ways. For instance, several recent studies have suggested that differences in insertion/deletion biases lead to profound differences in the rate of DNA loss in animals and that this difference per se can lead to significant changes in genome size. In particular, Drosophila melanogaster appears to have a very high rate of deletions and the correspondingly high rate of DNA loss and a very compact genome. To assess the validity of these studies we must first assess the validity of the measurements of indel biases themselves. Here I demonstrate the robustness of indel bias measurements in Drosophila, by comparing indel patterns in different types of nonfunctional sequences. The indel pattern and the high rate of DNA loss appears to be shared by all known nonfunctional sequences, both euchromatic and heterochromatic, transposable and non-transposable, repetitive and unique. Unfortunately all available nonfunctional sequences are untranscribed and thus effects of transcription on indel bias cannot be assessed. I also discuss in detail why it is unlikely that natural selection for or against DNA loss significantly affects current estimates of indel biases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12188050     DOI: 10.1023/a:1016076215168

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genetica        ISSN: 0016-6707            Impact factor:   1.082


  55 in total

1.  Incongruent patterns of local and global genome size evolution in cotton.

Authors:  Corrinne E Grover; HyeRan Kim; Rod A Wing; Andrew H Paterson; Jonathan F Wendel
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2004-07-15       Impact factor: 9.043

Review 2.  A guided tour of large genome size in animals: what we know and where we are heading.

Authors:  France Dufresne; Nicholas Jeffery
Journal:  Chromosome Res       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 5.239

3.  Intron size and exon evolution in Drosophila.

Authors:  Gabriel Marais; Pierre Nouvellet; Peter D Keightley; Brian Charlesworth
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2005-03-21       Impact factor: 4.562

4.  The evolutionary history of Drosophila buzzatii. XXXVI. Molecular structural analysis of Osvaldo retrotransposon insertions in colonizing populations unveils drift effects in founder events.

Authors:  María Pilar García Guerreiro; Antonio Fontdevila
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2006-12-06       Impact factor: 4.562

5.  LTR retrotransposon-gene associations in Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  Eric W Ganko; Casey S Greene; Judson A Lewis; Vikram Bhattacharjee; John F McDonald
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  2006-01-11       Impact factor: 2.395

6.  Differential lineage-specific amplification of transposable elements is responsible for genome size variation in Gossypium.

Authors:  Jennifer S Hawkins; HyeRan Kim; John D Nason; Rod A Wing; Jonathan F Wendel
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2006-09-05       Impact factor: 9.043

7.  Genome size in Hieracium subgenus Hieracium (Asteraceae) is strongly correlated with major phylogenetic groups.

Authors:  Jindrich Chrtek; Jaroslav Zahradnícek; Karol Krak; Judith Fehrer
Journal:  Ann Bot       Date:  2009-05-11       Impact factor: 4.357

8.  Selection for the compactness of highly expressed genes in Gallus gallus.

Authors:  You S Rao; Zhang F Wang; Xue W Chai; Guo Z Wu; Ming Zhou; Qing H Nie; Xi Q Zhang
Journal:  Biol Direct       Date:  2010-05-14       Impact factor: 4.540

9.  Burst of young retrogenes and independent retrogene formation in mammals.

Authors:  Deng Pan; Liqing Zhang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-03-27       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Evolutionary mirages: selection on binding site composition creates the illusion of conserved grammars in Drosophila enhancers.

Authors:  Richard W Lusk; Michael B Eisen
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2010-01-22       Impact factor: 5.917

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.